The Department of Education wants to lower the standard of proof for sexual assault from clear and convincing evidence to a preponderance of the evidence.

When a party has the burden of proving any claim or defense by clear and convincing evidence, it means that the party must present evidence that leaves you with a firm belief or conviction that it is highly probable that the factual contentions of the claim or defense are true.

This is a higher standard of proof than proof by a preponderance of the evidence, but it does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It's something like 75% to 95% certainty. Beyond a reasonable doubt is greater than 95% certainty.

When a party has the burden of proving any claim by a preponderance of the evidence, it means you must be persuaded by the evidence that the claim is more probably true than not true. This simply means greater than 50% certainty, so, for example, 50.000001% certainty passes.

Starting in 2011, the Department of Education"s Office of Civil Rights began to insist that colleges would run afoul of Title IX and risk losing federal funding unless they adjudicated cases using the weaker "preponderance of the evidence" standard.

This effort was part of a vain endeavor to decrease sexual assault rates on campus, but the implication was that sexual assault became a crime for which not even innocence was a defense too, mostly due to rape culture myths promulgated by the social justice warrior types.

Many prominent law professors have rejected the lowered evidentiary standard for reasons that anyone with even a marginal understanding of standards of proof can and should grasp.

..relentless pressure on institutions to respond aggressively to sexual assault allegations has undermined the neutrality of many campus investigators and adjudicators by forcing them to consider the broader financial impact of their actions. In an effort to preclude a costly Title IX investigation, some institutions interrogate accused students before informing them of the specific conduct code they are alleged to have violated and many deny them access to witnesses or potentially exculpatory evidence. In the aftermath, innocent suspended and expelled students have become mired "in academic and professional limbo," impairing or destroying their access to a college education, thereby relegating them to a lifetime of diminished income and social stigmatization as sexual offenders.

Where the implications of even being accused of sexual assault can have lifelong ramifications, narratives of social justice are not outweighed by the very real and legitimate concern of justice not just for the ostensible victim, but for the accused as well.

The Department of Education wants to lower the standard of proof for sexual assault from clear and convincing evidence to a preponderance of the evidence.

When a party has the burden of proving any claim or defense by clear and convincing evidence, it means that the party must present evidence that leaves you with a firm belief or conviction that it is highly probable that the factual contentions of the claim or defense are true.

This is a higher standard of proof than proof by a preponderance of the evidence, but it does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It's something like 75% to 95% certainty. Beyond a reasonable doubt is greater than 95% certainty.

When a party has the burden of proving any claim by a preponderance of the evidence, it means you must be persuaded by the evidence that the claim is more probably true than not true. This simply means greater than 50% certainty, so, for example, 50.000001% certainty passes.

Starting in 2011, the Department of Education"s Office of Civil Rights began to insist that colleges would run afoul of Title IX and risk losing federal funding unless they adjudicated cases using the weaker "preponderance of the evidence" standard.

This effort was part of a vain endeavor to decrease sexual assault rates on campus, but the implication was that sexual assault became a crime for which not even innocence was a defense too, mostly due to rape culture myths promulgated by the social justice warrior types.

Many prominent law professors have rejected the lowered evidentiary standard for reasons that anyone with even a marginal understanding of standards of proof can and should grasp.

..relentless pressure on institutions to respond aggressively to sexual assault allegations has undermined the neutrality of many campus investigators and adjudicators by forcing them to consider the broader financial impact of their actions. In an effort to preclude a costly Title IX investigation, some institutions interrogate accused students before informing them of the specific conduct code they are alleged to have violated and many deny them access to witnesses or potentially exculpatory evidence. In the aftermath, innocent suspended and expelled students have become mired "in academic and professional limbo," impairing or destroying their access to a college education, thereby relegating them to a lifetime of diminished income and social stigmatization as sexual offenders.

Where the implications of even being accused of sexual assault can have lifelong ramifications, narratives of social justice are not outweighed by the very real and legitimate concern of justice not just for the ostensible victim, but for the accused as well.

Didn't think you'd ever make a post I agree with but yeah. Reducing the standard of proof is categorically a terrible idea. I can see the reasons why they'd want to do it but innocent-until-proven-guilty exists for a reason. Better ten rapists walk free than imprison an innocent man, put him on a registry, make him a social pariah, and basically ruin his life.

The Department of Education wants to lower the standard of proof for sexual assault from clear and convincing evidence to a preponderance of the evidence.

When a party has the burden of proving any claim or defense by clear and convincing evidence, it means that the party must present evidence that leaves you with a firm belief or conviction that it is highly probable that the factual contentions of the claim or defense are true.

This is a higher standard of proof than proof by a preponderance of the evidence, but it does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It's something like 75% to 95% certainty. Beyond a reasonable doubt is greater than 95% certainty.

When a party has the burden of proving any claim by a preponderance of the evidence, it means you must be persuaded by the evidence that the claim is more probably true than not true. This simply means greater than 50% certainty, so, for example, 50.000001% certainty passes.

Starting in 2011, the Department of Education"s Office of Civil Rights began to insist that colleges would run afoul of Title IX and risk losing federal funding unless they adjudicated cases using the weaker "preponderance of the evidence" standard.

This effort was part of a vain endeavor to decrease sexual assault rates on campus, but the implication was that sexual assault became a crime for which not even innocence was a defense too, mostly due to rape culture myths promulgated by the social justice warrior types.

Many prominent law professors have rejected the lowered evidentiary standard for reasons that anyone with even a marginal understanding of standards of proof can and should grasp.

..relentless pressure on institutions to respond aggressively to sexual assault allegations has undermined the neutrality of many campus investigators and adjudicators by forcing them to consider the broader financial impact of their actions. In an effort to preclude a costly Title IX investigation, some institutions interrogate accused students before informing them of the specific conduct code they are alleged to have violated and many deny them access to witnesses or potentially exculpatory evidence. In the aftermath, innocent suspended and expelled students have become mired "in academic and professional limbo," impairing or destroying their access to a college education, thereby relegating them to a lifetime of diminished income and social stigmatization as sexual offenders.

Where the implications of even being accused of sexual assault can have lifelong ramifications, narratives of social justice are not outweighed by the very real and legitimate concern of justice not just for the ostensible victim, but for the accused as well.

Didn't think you'd ever make a post I agree with but yeah.

Reality is that you and I probably agree on vastly more than we disagree. But I don't care to have that discussion in this thread.

Reducing the standard of proof is categorically a terrible idea.

Indeed. It's literally created an institutional incentive to violate the due process rights of, in particular, boys in college.

I can see the reasons why they'd want to do it but innocent-until-proven-guilty exists for a reason. Better ten rapists walk free than imprison an innocent man, put him on a registry, make him a social pariah, and basically ruin his life.

Burden of proof must always be on the accuser, not the accused. In fact, we should make the requirements harsher, not easier. Innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around as many feminists would like.

If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.

At 6/19/2016 6:56:32 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:Burden of proof must always be on the accuser, not the accused. In fact, we should make the requirements harsher, not easier. Innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around as many feminists would like.

Personally, I believe that burden of proof should be extremely high. But then, I also support a near total surveillance state. So proof (for or against) is easier to obtain. That is because I do not likely not having a concrete "yes" or "no." When I have employees at work who accuse another employee of coming in late to work, I like to be able to just go to the door records that record the second you swipe your badge to have access and cameras that show if you come to your desk or piddlefart around before starting work. It makes it much easier to make "hard" decisions.

If anything, the standard should be raised, not lowered. You can't - and shouldn't - be able to convict an accused rapist or other type of sexual abuser without sufficient evidence. If we were to lower the standard, then anyone merely accused of being a rapist would be able to face jail time, if I'm correct. After all, you're innocent until proven guilty for a reason. It isn't about being a rape apologist, it's about justice for the accused and the accuser.

~missbailey8~

Me: What is the weirdest thing I have ever done?
Solon: Agreeing to date me.

Skep: Bailey, you have sardonic written all over your face.
Annie: She has gorgeous written all over her face!

"[M]en are weak. All of us are weak."
-Fatihah

If you ever just want someone to vent, rant, or discuss anything troubling you, my PMs are always open. Have a fabulous day!

The Department of Education wants to lower the standard of proof for sexual assault from clear and convincing evidence to a preponderance of the evidence.

When a party has the burden of proving any claim or defense by clear and convincing evidence, it means that the party must present evidence that leaves you with a firm belief or conviction that it is highly probable that the factual contentions of the claim or defense are true.

This is a higher standard of proof than proof by a preponderance of the evidence, but it does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It's something like 75% to 95% certainty. Beyond a reasonable doubt is greater than 95% certainty.

When a party has the burden of proving any claim by a preponderance of the evidence, it means you must be persuaded by the evidence that the claim is more probably true than not true. This simply means greater than 50% certainty, so, for example, 50.000001% certainty passes.

Starting in 2011, the Department of Education"s Office of Civil Rights began to insist that colleges would run afoul of Title IX and risk losing federal funding unless they adjudicated cases using the weaker "preponderance of the evidence" standard.

This effort was part of a vain endeavor to decrease sexual assault rates on campus, but the implication was that sexual assault became a crime for which not even innocence was a defense too, mostly due to rape culture myths promulgated by the social justice warrior types.

Many prominent law professors have rejected the lowered evidentiary standard for reasons that anyone with even a marginal understanding of standards of proof can and should grasp.

..relentless pressure on institutions to respond aggressively to sexual assault allegations has undermined the neutrality of many campus investigators and adjudicators by forcing them to consider the broader financial impact of their actions. In an effort to preclude a costly Title IX investigation, some institutions interrogate accused students before informing them of the specific conduct code they are alleged to have violated and many deny them access to witnesses or potentially exculpatory evidence. In the aftermath, innocent suspended and expelled students have become mired "in academic and professional limbo," impairing or destroying their access to a college education, thereby relegating them to a lifetime of diminished income and social stigmatization as sexual offenders.

Where the implications of even being accused of sexual assault can have lifelong ramifications, narratives of social justice are not outweighed by the very real and legitimate concern of justice not just for the ostensible victim, but for the accused as well.

While I have a pretty good idea of what 95% and over is, I'm not really sure what 75% to 95% certainty would look like. Can you give me a rape scenario that would meet this standard?

"Check your facts, not your privilege" - Christina Hoff Summers

If you go to jail for Tax Evasion, you're living off of Taxes as a result of not paying Taxes

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw